High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41704 of 2022 Applicant :- Arjun Duggal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Arora,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Arjun Duggal involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Prabhat Digitally signed by PRABHAT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.30 10:58:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Lav Kush Dixit Advocate holding brief of Mr. Santosh Kumar Dubey learned counsel for informant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 383 of 2022 under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Phase-III, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 3. As per contents of FIR, the informant's daughter aged about 25 years is said to have committed suicide in the intervening night of 1st/2nd August, 2022. It is stated that she had gone for work but did not return and one of her friends thereafter contacted the informant's other daughter requiring her presence in a particular hotel where the dead body was found. F.I.R. also states that subsequently applicant informed the informant's other daughter that the deceased had been raped by one Akash and others and also provided proof in the form of video clipping. Suspicion has been cast upon the applicant as well. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on the basis of suspicion and in fact it was the applicant who had informed the family of deceased with regard to rape having been committed upon her which led to her committing suicide. It is submitted that a perusal of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. will make it evident that there is no corroboration of allegation of any rape having been committed by the applicant. It is also submitted that in fact the deceased had sought help from the applicant since the aforesaid Akash was blackmailing her. Learned cousnel has therefore submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are made out against the applicant who is in jail since 5th August, 2022. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the crime committed is quite heinous being rape and blackmailing which led to the informant's daughter committing suicide. 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears from a perusal of F.I.R. itself that applicant has been nominated on the basis of suspicion although in the F.I.R. it has been clearly stated that it was the applicant who provided information regarding rape and blackmail of deceased. Statements of family member and other witnesses of deceased do not indicate any evidence being available with them of any rape or blackmail having been committed upon the deceased by the applicant. From a perusal of material on record, the ingredients of Section 107 IPC do not appear to be satisfied at this stage with regard to applicant as have been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Sharma versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering